Halton Arp and the Fight for our Living Universe

Halton Arp and the Fight for our Living Universe

An RTF Class

Is there reason to believe that the Big Bang which most scientists believe kick started the universe as we know it 13.7 billion years ago, may not be true?

In this Rising Tide Foundation lecture, I take the opportunity to introduce some competing alternatives to Big Bang Cosmology and standard model quantum mechanics which takes into account a broader spectrum of empirical data derived from the pioneering work of astronomer Halton Arp (1927-2013), and many other scientists whose names have been forgotten or obscured for purely political motives.

The question of the intersection of cellular biology, environmental science and galaxy formation is also investigated with a focus upon the nature of MIND and LIFE as principles organizing living space time.

To watch the video, please click on the hyperlink below:

Halton Arp and the Fight for our Living Universe – Matt Ehret’s Insights (substack.com)

.

An Interview with Richard Ebright: How Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins “systematically thwarted” the US Gain-of-Function Research Pause

Published on (Wednesday, March 24th, 2021) by Independent Science News
An Interview with Richard Ebright: How Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins “systematically thwarted” the US Gain-of-Function Research Pause

Interviewed by Jorge Casesmeiro Roger
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/an-interview-with-richard-ebright-anthony-fauci-francis-collins-systematically-thwarted/
Synopsis: In this exclusive and wide-ranging interview with Prof. Richard Ebright, the long-time critic of risky pathogen research is asked about the merits of the WHO investigation, its personnel, and its forthcoming report.

The interview also asks about Gain-of-Function (GoF) research and the surprising silence of the Cambridge Working Group. In the interview Dr Ebright describes how US scientific leaders deliberately circumvented the GoF research pause placed on them. The directors of NIAID and NIH even stymied risk benefit assessment of such research.
Please share if you find this to be useful.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive DirectorThe Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA

2020 USA presidential election: Was science on the ballot?

[Jan] Was science on the ballot?

Message Body

An email received by Thinkers Forum USA :

{Email posted with hyper link as is}

A rare recent ray of light from Science magazine, from Sheila Jasanoff and others:
“The pandemic has seen much hand-wringing about Americans’ unwillingness to “accept science” and follow public health directives…….It is tempting to treat matters of health, safety, and environmental policy as if they are primarily about facts, because this transforms intractable social disputes into seemingly answerable technical questions. But such moves are inimical to democracy. When the key issue is who decides, acting as if disagreements are mainly about evidence is bad politics and bad social science. It turns expertise into an object of distrust and exacerbates American culture’s tendency to alienate people from the perceived elitism of science (2). This creates fertile ground for alternative facts and conspiracy theories that reframe problems and relocate the focus of blame.

Science advice thus occupies a precarious position on the boundary between asserting facts and making policy. It faces the structural problem of being authoritative without becoming authoritarian. It divides power between scientists, who are mainly accountable to their peers, and authorized political representatives, who are accountable to the citizens they serve. This allocation of authority is fundamentally political, even constitutional. We should not be surprised if expert advisers find their claims being questioned, given their consequential role in contemporary governance.”
Worth reading in full and digesting at length IMO. Its at:
https://compcore.cornell.edu/science2021/

Jonathan
Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive DirectorThe Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA

A vision for agriculture

( A worth reading article on how farmers are reverting back to old healthy ways of raising livestock-f.sheikh)

We know how to replace toxic, intensive livestock raising with beautiful, efficient grasslands. Do we have the will?

It hit him about 1:30 on a Sunday morning last September, as he hurried to combine the last of the corn and beat the building thunderstorms: ‘Why am I killing myself to feed these cows? Why am I scraping and hauling their manure to the fields, milking three times a day – for a check that doesn’t cover the bills?’ Chatting at the local coffee shop, Zeke and his buddies discussed the pros and cons of managed grazing as an alternative. Most of them dismissed it as ‘old-fashioned’ or ‘good for the hippies but not real farmers’. But Zeke had heard stories of it saving a farm or two, so he figured: ‘What do I have to lose? I’m not payin’ the bills this way!’

Progress has manifested itself in odd ways in agriculture. Grass farmers say: ‘Animals have legs, and plants have roots, for a reason.’ Allowing cows out to harvest their own feed and spread their own manure is the most profitable means of producing meat and milk. But, somehow, agricultural science has encouraged farmers to mount a treadmill of increasing yields of milk or meat by increasing the amount of production per unit input. This means reliance on three intensive practices: first, genetic alteration for higher plant feed and animal yields; second, the application of synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and growth compounds; and third, concentrating livestock in barns and feedlots where they can be fed a carefully balanced, high-priced diet, and their excreta is collected and redistributed elsewhere. These strategies were wildly successful with respect to increasing yields. But they have come with two general downsides that are inescapable: first, the profits of the system accrue mainly to the suppliers of seed, pesticides, fertilisers and genetics; and second, the costs of the system accrue to all of society in the form of devastating environmental degradation.

Full article